Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 31, 2013 6:00am-6:31am PST

6:00 am
discussion to the specific items that have been raised by the appellants. the project proposes to demolish an existing building on the corner of valencia street. in it's place it will construct a 5 story mixed use building with an active restaurant. i want to stress that the project as designed is entirely with the zoning district and does not accept any cooperation and coding variances. it's proposed development with the height by the code at a lower density that could be developed at the site. it showed a negative declaration. finally can have no significant environmental impact. that was later
6:01 am
determined by the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the project is also consistent with the general plan, the eastern neighborhoods plan and the mission street area plan specifically which is passed in 2008. as you know eastern neighborhoods plans were developed over several years through participation with the city government and other stakeholders. the mission area plan encourages higher density transient ordinary housing along valencia street. the plan rezoned the property to allow the type of current development property proposed. it's going to locate new housing units in a transit rich area and it will design the areas that will compliment the district. before i can address issues raised by the appellants, i would like to ask the architect to speak to the design and response to the
6:02 am
outreach with the community. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm steven, the architect. i want to talk about the outreach efforts and the extent of the meetings that have happened over in fact in 6 years. i will put that up. that is the list of meetings. there will have been 15 since the beginning which did start in concept since 2006 when the owner had the restaurant occupied the space on a temporary bases planning to have it put in. at that time the neighborhood had not put in place but the neighborhoods were notified of the restaurant and a new building would be forthcoming.
6:03 am
the permit process -- began in environmental review since 2007. the project was a go so as the appellant brought up the current requirement for departmental review was after that point. we had substantial review with planning department, with historic preservation and in fact this would be the 6th or 7th public hearing. we had two hearings with historic preservation commission. that was the first public hearing. that was actually on a building that was larger and they did request it to be changed and they also listened today neighbors input about their needing to be more
6:04 am
review of this project's impact on the historic district so we went back and i modified the design and the planning department substantiated their comment that in fact the new building did not impact the district. at the second hearing it was approved on that basis. we then had the process of review which took actually a long time. there were further changes to the plans. this again -- list the chronology here which requested that would scale it down significantly and the neighbors rejected. there has been conflicting opinions and requests from both neighborhoods. in fact the
6:05 am
building, withdrew their request for the variance. so we made a hundred percent code enforcement. there would be 16 units at that time, it's now 12. this is pretty much the building we have now. i will show you the plan. at this point this has gone through a lot of planning review unfair to building representative. it's been reviewed and the final outcome is modified again from what the planning department approved unanimously at the description review hearing. so i just have maybe
6:06 am
just some snapshots of some of the details that we are looking at. this is pretty much again recent changes right after the planning commission hearing. the project is intended to be contemporary like the new building. it's not attempting to be an historic building. the appellant did select photos which is easy to do of the 1 and 2 story buildings that are substantially around that neighborhood and they did not choose the buildings that are not historic and are sprinkled evenly throughout the community. i think that confers -- covers what i was hope to cover in response. one more
6:07 am
item on the context of we are not having a planning commission hearing on this now, but that issue, i want to actually acknowledge this lot is a boundary lot. it is adjacent to, it's not one lot away from historic district, which is liberty history historic district goes back as the first suburb of san francisco and maintains as single family, low scale neighborhood to this day which is why it contributed to it being a historic district and as a result it has a very different demographic and socioeconomic population and yet it abuts this property and the mission which is also very diverse and different. it's not exactly accurate to say this this lot is part of the a little bita -- liberty hill.
6:08 am
it's zoned like the valencia street corner. >> i know you are not done with your presentation since you are up there. the other buildings in the photographs in your brief, i think you referenced those on your scale, i think they are all at least visually they appear to be pretty historic looking. >> they are generally built in the 20s-40s. >> the look is pretty distinct from the project you have. >> yeah. some have actually 100 lot with no parking. >> the design? >> the design are the era from
6:09 am
which they were built. >> the height? >> the property on lexington is 7 or 8 stories tall. >> is that higher? >> much higher. that actually is a feature of these. they are on the corner and they have no yard . >> and it's not in ex-to a performance space. >> they are next single family housing. >> affordability. i don't know if you are going to address this. i will hold the question, thank you. >> affordability is the unit that was not raised in the
6:10 am
appeal. the development is 12 units on-site which two are going to be bmr units. >> my understanding that they bought the -- i don't actually follow that. so two actual below market rate units will be provided as part of this development? >> they filed the declaration with the planning department to satisfy the requirement. so at this point i would like to take the opportunity to discuss some of the other issues that were raised by appellants. i know there were a number of them. i want to begin whenever we left off with height. the height in the scale are compatible with the area. we would say it's simply not true. with regard to height, the project is 55 feet tall to the roof line. so i have, here you see the 55-foot
6:11 am
height. i know it's not that large along the valencia street. additional elements on the buildings roof that don't count towards the definition of the height of the planning code does include things like the corner of valencia and hill street. then one mechanical stair elevator room which is actually only occupying a smaller portion of the roof. it would be 400 square feet of the southwest corner of the roof. it's unlikely these features would be scene notable to. the
6:12 am
actual is 55. the appellant is saying it's 70 feet and this is inaccurate. in addition there was some graphics in the appellant brief that states a 70 foot-foot tall refrigerator space. it's going to represent their height with other adjacent structures. also to the development of the 55-foot height specific to the goal of the area plan including policy 314 which says building height should reflect key streets in the over all buildings patterns to provide greater variety scale in enabling gracious ground floor areas. i have with me a graphic depicting map of
6:13 am
other 4 story or higher buildings in the area surrounding the project. i also have a copy which i will pass forward. >> i would like to see that. did you provide copies to the appellant? >> no. >> they need to get that now. >> there are extras in what i handed to you. >> as well as to the department. >> do you have one for the department? >> no. i had 10 copies. >> we'll share. >> some of the buildings to note in this include 5 stories 50-foot tall. thank you. >> do you need any extras?
6:14 am
contemporary structures that is located across from the project at 1043 valencia. here is the project area almost directly across the street we have a 5 story contemporary structure which weren't shown in the images. the 34 mission campus 1 block west of valencia. and multistory historic apartment house. in addition, as referenced by the architect there is reference -- >> i'm sorry to stop you. i'm disoriented here. where is the project? >> right here. this is mission and this is valencia. the 7 stories apartment house is at 21st street and los angeles --
6:15 am
analects -- lexington. the areas is much taller than the equivalence. this was because they were built with 4 ceiling heights. although the project would be taller, it's height would be consistent with the zoning district and other structures in the vicinity. this has also been considered by the planning commission and the board of supervisors on previous reviews. next on the arguments that this is excessive. this is an ex- fault district. sizes are not required in this area. this decision by the city in the ideal building forms that was made part of the eastern neighborhood controls. the project would reach only 55 feet on a 4 lane street which
6:16 am
is over 80 feet in width. a step back in the area is necessary to reduce an area of large massing. the project does provided a 21 foot -foot four 4-inch rear yard setback for the whole height of the building along hill street above the second floor. this can be seen here along the property of hill street. this can serve to separate from other structures along hill street. finally this incorporates a range of design elements creating appearance for pedestrian residents. those are items such as bay windows and etc that the project sponsor worked with the design team implement. another concern
6:17 am
that's been raised is density. the density is not appropriate. it has 12 residential units. however the project is opposing density this was originally proposed as a 16-unit project and decreased as in response to comments. the eastern neighborhoods purposely eliminated the residential densities in the district to further and expressed policy in the plan of encouraging development along transit avenues. additionally there are many buildings along the site that contain more than 4 units. on hill street 13 units, 1,000 valencia street, 11 units, directly across the street is
6:18 am
18 units. 907 valencia 28 buildings and adjacent it has 52. so constructing 12 units is consistent with the area. next i want to touch base on design. >> can you, sorry, i don't mean to keep interrupting but if i don't i will forget my question. the square footage, what is the total? that might be helpful too. average size of the units. >> i believe our average unit size is somewhere around 560
6:19 am
square feet to 700. >> so the full 700 times 12 would be? we are looking at? >> yeah. >> okay. thank you. >> so, with regard to design, one of the allegations that have come up is that this project has a very stark modern design and that it doesn't fit in with the rest of the surrounding district. however, this is contemporary and not a modern style and regardless there is a range of modern structures within the area. the neighborhood both are very diverse architectural style. this has been noted in the project ceqa documents. it includes 23 valencia almost directly across the street from the property, again not shown from the project earlier. and another just a block away at 25 bartlett street. it's just a few of the nearby contemporary
6:20 am
modern structures we looked around the area.' we ensure we see routinely here intelligent minds candice agree about style issues. however the design is appropriate for the design and will compliment it's surroundings. this analysis was considered and concerned by planning commission and design team and the planning commission and it's something that has been through a significant amount of review. with regard to the adjacent historic district, another allegation that is made by appellants that the proposed project is around historic resources. the project doesn't contain any historic buildings and not located within a historic district itself. the liberty hill historic district is separated along hill street and another lot and property
6:21 am
which is a 2 story residential building. in addition the property has been occupied for 40 years with a non-historic building. this is outside of the district. second, as was discussed the project is going to be designed to effectively relate to historic elements of nearby buildings without creating a false impression of historic significance. this was noted by the project's historical research evaluation and the design and research specialist and incorporated the design of all the features and
6:22 am
relates to the nearby victorian structures. finally it has been previously determined that it will not affect the area and historic district. this was later reaffirmed in the board of supervisors as part of the ceqa process. again it has been heard and reviewed repeatedly. the one problem is parking. the zone intentionally removed parking for mixed use and for capacity and taking advantage of public transit in this area. offset parking is added per unit cost which gets pass to
6:23 am
residents whether they want it or not. residents without parking are more likely not to have their own vehicles. this is not within the eastern neighborhood controls. a car street project is appropriate for the area especially when explains to have a program. including this will have a bicycle parking spaces. so parking should not be a concern to this sight. -- site. one of the major concerns is the noise complaint. however this concern has been addressed in the project's discretionary review hearing in the planning
6:24 am
commission in 2012 and again in the hearing of the appeal of the ceqa over a month ago. that the design would avoid noise impact. i would like to ask frank zoolac to come up and briefly discuss his professional opinion the existing noise conditions at the site. >> in my experience as the
6:25 am
acoustical consultant, in this situation in my mind it's strangely reverse that it's the residents having an issue. we look at two issues. one is municipal codes and two, the state building codes. san francisco noise ordinance which is an exemplary one limits noise at the source property line or property plane as it extends vertically and limits it to 5 decibels more than the ambient which is the lowest ambient that would be measured. in addition, there is a low protect -- frequency limit and
6:26 am
allows an even greater latitude of a bdc and the c designate or addresses the low frequencies. the san francisco noise ordinance also has six dba limits for construction and this limit is 80 decibels at 50 feet. there is also a limitation financing options a fixed dba values for interiors, this is not for commercial. the california building code comprised notice ventilation properties for multi-residential units. the california building code also limits interior noise due
6:27 am
environmental ambient. this is largely due to vehicular, rail and aircraft traffic and this is for the residential portion. this is the part that the marsh is not concerned with. this is the part that we are for the design of the building and the residents within the building. the project would comply with both the san francisco noise ordinance and the california building code, it complies with both, fully. i should point out the marsh and the proposed hill street project, fortunately have stair wells that abut each other on the property plane. this afterwards an inherent buffer so it separates further from having a wall that is some 8-12 or 16 fit with dead airspace and provides an excellent design for us and an
6:28 am
added benefit. however, the noise from valencia street will remain a primary impact for the marsh. the proposed commercial space at ground level will have an 8-inch thick concrete wall at the property plane. the existing restaurant that is there now has much lighter construction. this is going to be a step forward to isolate those two buildings. the proposed building itself is going to propose the larger barrier than the existing restaurant. it's going to produce a sound barrier of it's own and preclude south of hill street traffic and pedestrian shouting and will preclude that from entering the marsh and some of the sound that will be coming from traffic and
6:29 am
occupants on valencia street it will provide a barrier for that as well. in summary, it's my opinion that the completed project, not the construction noise, but the completed project is likely to improve the noise to the marsh theatre. my comments are limited. my involvement has been short. i stand by to answer any questions you may have. >> are you saying the building would absorb the noise from the street, protect the marsh from the noise? >> sound doesn't like to go around corners. imagine the freeway barriers for traffic to the homes, this is a huge barrier. the sound has to go up and over. >> the sound from hill street
6:30 am
because you said valencia street. >> it's the sound of hill street because it's going to block the sound from hill street and the path from valencia to the east. it will block some of that as well. if you were on valencia street and you look from the east to the marsh theatre you can see the wall of the mark theatre and see the window in the upper level from valencia street from the path. the new proposed building will block that site and provide an acoustical noise barrier. >> did you review the pal letty report? >> yes i did. >> it came on after that. >> i have only been involved in the past month or so. and i found the pal letty report to be objective and pointed out some


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on